Would Holodeck Crimes be Immoral?

[Mijin]

@Boyo_Jim

I understand intent is big element of a legal question, but the OP isn’t about legality, but morality.

They’re related though.
Carrying out an action with the intention to harm others is almost universally seen as immoral, and to be worse than negligance or merely bad luck leading to someone’s harm.

Oh, and another question about the nature of the holodeck. I can conceive of two basic types. One is a large space you wander in, and a synthetic reality is somehow projected around you. The other is some kind of booth or tank – no real physical space is needed because the synthetic reality is transmitted directly into your brain.

I pose this question because of the comments about about “sentient” computers, and whether it may be immoral to cause them damage or pain. For those of you concerned about this, would the latter “booth” type address your issues?

This makes no difference at all.

The point is this: to generate entities that pass the turing test, that walk, talk and think like humans, may involve inadvertently creating something sentient.
(and I went on to conclude that we cannot even be sure that such entities do not feel real pain, but that’s not necessary for the point here).

Where that intelligence exists is clearly within the computer’s memory, not within a hologram. But the difference is largely moot as whatever happens to the hologram we can assume would affect the entity in the computer’s memory, until we realize the entity is sentient and un-hook it from the VR.

There’s no difference with any of this in the booth type.

---

I should add though that I am very much of the opinion that a holodeck would be harmless fun and just about any fantasy should be acceptable (i.e. I would still draw a line but at severely depraved fantasies, not the legal/illegal or moral/immoral line).
But I’m sure by the time it becomes a possibility that we might create sentience we’ll have some idea how to test for it and protect it.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@ITR_champion

The facts are that pornography based on rape and murder exists and is sold in the United States, and, to judge by this thread or any other where I’ve seen the issue discussed most people voice the opinion that as long as no actual violent crimes were committed in making that stuff, then it’s moral.

When does a fictionalized version of an immoral act become immoral?

Is Shakespeare immoral because there are murders in it? Is it only immoral when performed, or is the written word also immoral? Is it only immoral if sex is involved? Does the sex actually have to be portrayed, or can it be implied?

I understand that you believe that there are certain thoughts or depictions that are immoral in and of themselves. I might even agree with you to some extent. I just don’t understand how one draws the line.